Abstract

Footnotes (37)

Using the URL or DOI link below will
ensure access to this page indefinitely

Based on your IP address, your paper is being delivered by:

New York, USA

Processing request.

Illinois, USA

Processing request.

Brussels, Belgium

Processing request.

Seoul, Korea

Processing request.

California, USA

Processing request.

If you have any problems downloading this paper,please click on another Download Location above, or view our FAQFile name: SSRN-id2101776. ; Size: 424K

You will receive a perfect bound, 8.5 x 11 inch, black and white printed copy of this PDF document with a glossy color cover. Currently shipping to U.S. addresses only. Your order will ship within 3 business days. For more details, view our FAQ.

Quantity:Total Price = $9.99 plus shipping (U.S. Only)

If you have any problems with this purchase, please contact us for assistance by email: Support@SSRN.com or by phone: 877-SSRNHelp (877 777 6435) in the United States, or +1 585 442 8170 outside of the United States. We are open Monday through Friday between the hours of 8:30AM and 6:00PM, United States Eastern.

The Supreme Court’s recent decisions in Roper v. Simmons and Graham v. Florida demonstrate that mitigating information about a young person accused of a crime is important to courts. In both Roper and Graham, the Supreme Court considered the tragic life histories of young defendants in conjunction with adolescent development research. In Roper, the Court held that sentencing juvenile offenders to death violates the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against cruel and unusual punishment. Similarly, the Graham decision found the punishment of life without the possibility of parole unconstitutional for juveniles convicted of nonhomicide offenses. Mitigating information helped to frame the Court’s understanding of the complicated developmental issues impacting juvenile offenders in both of these landmark cases.

Mitigating evidence may dramatically influence the outcome of a case, and the Court's reasoning in Roper and Graham suggests that mitigating evidence may be required in cases where juvenile offenders face substantial sentences in adult court. I set forth a framework for potential postconviction challenges to juvenile sentences based on the argument that failure to present mitigating evidence about a juvenile client in adult court constitutes ineffective assistance of counsel. This argument incorporates death penalty jurisprudence requiring counsel to present evidence of mitigation and builds on a model for postconviction review of Three Strikes sentences pioneered by Stanford Law School's Michael Romano.

The article explores alternative mechanisms for providing incarcerated juvenile offenders the opportunity to present evidence of rehabilitation in an effort to facilitate the type of “meaningful opportunity for release” that the Graham decision guarantees. It concludes by discussing specific skills and techniques attorneys should develop in order to gather and present mitigating information about juvenile clients. Drawing from therapeutic jurisprudence scholarship, as well as this author’s background in the field of Social Welfare, this discussion presents multidisciplinary techniques that enhance the legal representation of youth.